Kevin J. Kelley is the President of the Cleveland City Council. He presides over a body contemplating legislation introduced by two other Men: Councilmen Joe Cimperman and Matt Zone.

Joe and Matt believe it is “discrimination” to disallow Male-bodied people from sharing intimate space with Females. They have introduced legislation to require businesses to make their restrooms, showers and locker rooms available to both sexes.

“This is common sense legislation, and it’s long overdue,” Zone said. “We’re in the 21st century, and it would allow Clevelanders to feel comfortable in their own environment and to use facilities that they’re most comfortable with.”

No where has Zone ever considered that Women and Girls might not want to share intimate space with Males. This concern is consistently written off as a “right wing” concern, even though most Women – including the Liberal lesbians who write for this blog – do not want to share such intimate space with Males, including Males who identify as Women.

Query why these men consistently fail to consider the privacy and rights of Women and Girls when they propose this kind of legislation?

Matt Zone describes himself as a “defender of human rights.” Query if Women are Human?

WHEREAS, the City of Cleveland and employers should allow full access to facilities without qualification to all citizens and employees, including those denied access to bathrooms, showers, locker rooms or dressing facilities consistent with their gender identity or expression; and

WHEREAS, this ordinance constitutes an emergency measure providing for the usual daily operation of a municipal department; now, therefore,

WHEREAS, the City of Cleveland and employers should allow full access to facilities without qualification to all citizens and employees, including those denied access to bathrooms, showers, locker rooms or dressing facilities consistent with their gender identity or expression; and

WHEREAS, this ordinance constitutes an emergency measure providing for the usual daily operation of a municipal department; now, therefore,

How the hell does this constitute an “emergency measure”? What they mean is they want to shove this through without any input from voters. No questions asked, just do it. Calling this an “emergency measure” is clearly an abuse of the public trust.

The three men who are proposing this are all Democrats. This is what Democrats think of women. Obama wouldn’t have been elected twice without the women’s vote, and now they shit on us.

Women need to form our own political party separate from Democrats and Republicans.

WHEREAS, the City of Cleveland and employers should allow full access to facilities without qualification to all citizens and employees, including those denied access to bathrooms, showers, locker rooms or dressing facilities consistent with their gender identity or expression; and

Minor females are citizens. What mother wants her 10 year old daughter sharing a restroom with 40 year old strange man? Really creepy sick stuff.

If you google it, there are 1,671 registered sex offenders in Cleveland. I’m assuming they are citizens, and would have “full access to facilities without qualification”. What are “facilities”? Doesn’t this mean restrooms, locker rooms, showers?

Look into the face of three men who hate women. Make no mistake. Men on the left, or lean towards left to center, just have a different way of hating on women. Sometimes I think they are more dangerous than conservatives. I hate conservative ideology, but women are being screwed by men like these little pseudo progressive dimwits too.

(EMERGENCY ORDINANCE MY ASS! – THEY DON’T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW ABOUT THIS, AND THEY WANT TO PUSH IT THROUGH WITH NO DEBATE. THIS IS AN ABUSE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST. )

To amend Sections 667.01 and 663.04 of the Codified Ordinances of Cleveland, Ohio, 1976, as amended by Ordinance No. 1260-08, passed November 30, 2009, Section 667.99 as amended by Ordinance No. 128-97, passed January 27, 1997, and Section 663.99 as amended by Ordinance No 133-64, passed May 17, 1965, to strengthen the unlawful discriminatory public accommodations practices and unlawful employment practices based on gender identity and expression, and to increase penalties

THEY DON’T HAVE A PRECISE DEFINITION FOR “GENDER IDENTITY” OTHER THAN HOW A MALE FEELS AT ANY PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. DOES THIS INCLUDE PRE-OP (STILL HAS HIS PENIS), POST-OP, WHATEVER? NO ONE KNOWS.

WHEREAS, the City of Cleveland and employers should allow full access to facilities without qualification to all citizens and employees, including those denied access to bathrooms, showers, locker rooms or dressing facilities consistent with their gender identity or expression; and

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice in a place of public accommodation for any person who is the owner, operator, lessee, manager, administrator, servant, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation:

(a) To refuse, deny, segregate, discriminate or make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering its goods, services, facilities or accommodations to any person because of race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, age, disability, ethnic group, or Vietnam-era or disabled veteran status of such person;
(b) To refuse, deny, segregate, separate, discriminate, or make a distinction, directly or indirectly in any way, against any person in the full and equal use and enjoyment of the services, facilities, privileges, advantages or enforcement powers of the City, or any unit or office thereof, because of race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, age, disability, ethnic group, or Vietnam-era or disabled veteran status of such person;
(c) For any person, whether or not specifically prohibited from discriminating under any provisions of this section, to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any act declared to be an unlawful discriminatory practice by this section, or to attempt to do so;
(d) To coerce, intimidate, threaten, retaliate against, or otherwise interfere with any person, or attempt to do so, because he or she has promoted the provisions of this section, or because he or she has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding, investigation or hearing authorized by Sections 667.011 through 667.013 or by appropriate state or federal law;

a) Whoever violates any of the provisions of Section 667.05 or 667.01 shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor of the first degree and shall be fined not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00),
or sentenced to not less than three (3) months imprisonment, or both. The minimum fine and
imprisonment to be imposed by a court for a violation of Section 667.05 or 667.01 is mandatory
and may not be suspended in whole or in part.
(b) Whoever violates any other provision of this chapter shall be fined not more than one
thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and imprisoned for not more than thirty (30) days.

LISTEN TO THIS! HOW MANY GYMS, SPAS, AND HEALTH CLUBS ARE THERE IN CLEVELAND?

IF A WOMAN COMPLAINS ABOUT A PRE-OP (PENIS, TESTICLES) TRANSWOMAN EXPOSING HIMSELF, THE GYM COULD BE FINED $1,000.

COLLEEN FRANCIS CAN EXPOSE “HER MALE GENITALIA” TO 17 YEAR OLD GIRLS, AND IF THEY COMPLAIN, THE BUSINESS COULD BE FINED $1,000.

EVERGREEN STATE COLLEGE IN OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON. IT WAS THE MOTHER OF A SEVENTEEN YEAR OLD GIRL WHO COMPLAINED.

Please note that under sex it says, “F”. At the time of this incident, Francis definitely had male genitalia. Scroll on down and see where it says, “her male genitalia”. Yes, this campus police report says, “her legs open with her male genitalia showing “. This is how insane “gender identity” laws have become. For those unfamiliar with this incident, Francis is a retired military man who was married a couple of times and has children. At the time of this campus police report, he was taking classes at Evergreen State College.

SO, WOMEN HAVE TO GET USED TO PRE-OP TRANSWOMEN, DICK AND ALL, OR THEY AND THE BUSINESS COULD BE FINED! WOMEN, ARE YOU READING THIS. FEMALE EMPLOYEES OF GYMS HAVE TO LET PRE-OP TRANSWOMEN, DICK AND ALL, INTO WOMEN’S LOCKER ROOMS, OR THE GYM, HEALTH SPA, ETC. COULD BE FINED

I am a senior woman. Recently, a “man” claiming to be transgender, who had not yet begun physical treatments, was permitted by our local Y to use the women’s locker room. There are no secure change rooms. The person they allowed in was not courteous and stared at me while I struggled out of a wet bathing suit. He was naked, had an erection and playfully asked ‘do you come here often?’ I understand that gender is no longer judged solely by genitalia, but does a brief contact with the duty manager mean that men not yet committed to gender reassignment are free to disrobe anywhere they choose?”

It didn’t take long for women to respond. An excellent response to this article entitled, “Trans rights trump women’s rights” was posted online.

Transgender man’s ogling behaviour unacceptable, Jan. 4

“Ontarians accept that it is a challenging life for people with transgendered identities, which is why providing a reasonable alternative via the use of separate unisex bathrooms or change rooms seems to be a reasonable course of action to assist such individuals. Why is this reasonable and simple accommodation not enough for the minuscule minority of transgendered individuals among the millions of Ontarians?

Our “decision-makers” at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal have decided for all Ontarians that it’s not enough for a trans person to view himself as the opposite sex — the whole world must be forced to share his subjective view, too.

The new transgender bathroom policy has affirmed that the vast majority of Ontarian women and men are not entitled to the protection of the Human Rights Code as much as transsexuals are. What about the feelings, discomfort, and safety of the millions of girls and women in Ontario who are now forced to undress in the same change room with a pre-operation phenotypic male, who may claim to be transsexual? (***does this sound familiar)

Do our rights get trumped because an individual subjectively “feels” female even though he may still have a penis, and be more than happy to show it off? Did the OHRT consult Ontarians regarding their decision?

I am concerned that sexually predatory men will take advantage of the new bill by claiming they are transsexual in order to freely access any women’s washroom in the province. The guaranteed consequences of this bill are that many girls and women will definitely be victimized as a result.

Mr. Gallinger’s article suggests that this is already happening — hardly a surprise — and the trend will likely increase because there are no legal consequences for any predatory individuals who behave in this way. A predator banned from one facility simply has to go down the road to another.

Mr. Gallinger bemoans the predatory behaviour that one poor woman was forced to endure, while actively supporting a system that allows such predatory behaviour to flourish. Far more women than trans people stand to feel invaded and helpless by such behaviour as there are likely far more sexually predatory individuals out there than transgendered people — predatory individuals who will be delighted to put on a dress (or not even that) in order to access women’s bathrooms and change rooms under the guise of being self-identified as “transgendered.”

Although a transgendered person may feel s/he has the “right” to be in a women’s change room, what about the feelings of the phenotypic females who may not wish a phenotypic male to be in that washroom?

We women are entitled to the protection of the Human Rights Code, just like anyone else. Exactly how many transsexual people are there for whom we are risking the safety and security of our roughly 6.8 million girls and women?”

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice in a place of public accommodation for any person who is the owner, operator, lessee, manager, administrator, servant, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation:

ANY PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION…..WOMEN ARE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO ASK WHAT THAT STRANGE LOOKING MAN IS DOING IN THE WOMEN’S RESTROOM. HOW ARE WOMEN SUPPOSED TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HARMLESS TRANSWOMAN WITH “GENDER IDENTITY” ISSUES AND A VOYEUR IN A SKIRT AND WIG IF THEY BOTH LOOK ALIKE? DON’T ASK, OR YOU COULD BE FINED $1,000.

NOTICE HOW THIS SAYS, “FULL ACCESS TO FACILITIES WITHOUT QUALIFICATIONS FOR ALL CITIZENS”. “ALL CITIZENS” COULD MEAN ANY MALE SIMILAR TO THE ONES DESCRIBED BELOW. DON’T ASK WHAT THEY ARE DOING BECAUSE IT’S A FINE.

GOD KNOWS HOW MANY GIRLS AND WOMEN POMARE VIDEOTAPPED BEFORE HE WAS CAUGHT.

WOMEN HAVE LEGITIMATE REASONS TO BE SUSPICIOUS OF MALES IN OUR PRIVATE SPACES. IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF SEX OFFENDERS ARE MALE (OVER 90%), STUDIES THAT GO BACK DECADES CLEARLY SHOW THAT PARAPHILIAS (VOYEURISM, ETC.) ARE MORE COMMON IN MALES. THE FOLLOWING IS ONLY A SAMPLE OF CASES.

May 2013

A Palmdale man was arrested for reportedly videotaping females inside a Macy’s bathroom while dressed like a woman.

Jason Pomare, 33, was charged Tuesday with six misdemeanor counts of unlawful use of a concealed camera for purposes of gratification.

Deputies said Pomare was wearing a bra with fake breasts, a wig and women’s clothing while he secretly shot women under stalls Saturday at the retail store in the Antelope Valley Mall.

Store officials said they were alerted to Pomare when a woman saw a red light and notified security

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. -” Purdue University police are investigating a reported incident in which a man dressed as a woman was seen taking photographs under the wall of a women’s bathroom stall in Yue-Kong Pao Hall of Visual and Performing Arts. The incident was reported to police about 3:30 p.m. Monday (March 31).

According to a police report, a woman was in a bathroom stall on the third floor of the building and saw a hand holding a blue flip-phone camera beneath the door. She left the restroom and then returned to confront the person. At that point, she realized the person was a man dressed as a woman.”

EVERETT, Wash. – A man wearing a bra and wig was arrested Friday after he was spotted in a women’s bathroom at Everett Community College, police said.

Officers responded to the scene at about 1:30 p.m. after a college staff member said she saw the man go into the women’s rest room and alerted security personnel.

An investigation found that the suspect had gone into the rest room while two women were inside, according to a police report. The women were later interviewed and said they had no idea that the man was there.

When police interviewed the man, he claimed that he had gone into the bathroom to use the facilities.

But the investigating officer noted that the man was wearing a wig and bra. A search also turned up a pair of woman’s panties in his front pocket, according to the police report.

The man, later identified as Taylor J. Buehler, 18, of Lake Stevens, was placed under arrest.

He admitted to officers that he was the suspect in an earlier voyeurism incident at Everett Community College on Monday, police said.

In the earlier incident, he said he took a shower in the girls’ locker room for sexual gratification, acccording to the police report.”

To amend Sections 667.01 and 663.04 of the Codified Ordinances of Cleveland, Ohio, 1976, as amended by Ordinance No. 1260-08, passed November 30, 2009, Section 667.99 as amended by Ordinance No. 128-97, passed January 27, 1997, and Section 663.99 as amended by Ordinance No 133-64, passed May 17, 1965, to strengthen the unlawful discriminatory public accommodations practices and unlawful employment practices based on gender identity and expression, and to increase penalties.

“Emergency Ordinance” my a**! They don’t want people to know what they are doing, and they have NO intention of listening to anyone, especially women.

WHEREAS, the City of Cleveland and employers should allow full access to facilities without qualification to all citizens and employees, including those denied access to bathrooms, showers, locker rooms or dressing facilities consistent with their gender identity or expression; and

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice in a place of public accommodation for any person who is the owner, operator, lessee, manager, administrator, servant, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation:

Are dress shops “public accommodations”?

FEMALE EMPLOYEES HAVE TO HELP UNZIP THE DRESSES OF MEN WITH A SEXUAL FETISH (YES, GAVIN SCOTT DOES HAVE A SEXUAL FETISH, AND SO DO OTHER MALES WHO CROSS DRESS. NOT ALL CROSS DRESSERS HAVE A SEXUAL FETISH, BUT MANY DO. IT’S A DIRTY LITTLE SECRET TRANS* ACTIVIST IGNORE.) IF FEMALE EMPLOYEES DON’T CATER TO MEN LIKE GAVIN SCOTT, THE DRESS SHOP COULD BE FINED $1,000.

A cross-dressing Perth man who sexually assaulted three shop workers has been ordered to pay them compensation.

Gavin Scott was also placed on the sex offenders register for three years, during which time he will be subject to a supervision order.

He has also been ordered to undertake the Tay Project, which helps rehabilitate sex offenders.

Scott groped one teenage victim in January last year after asking for her help trying on a dress.

The 52-year-old, who had arrived at the store wearing women’s clothing, asked the 17-year-old to help him while he tried on clothes.

At a hearing in February, depute fiscal Tina Dickie said: “The accused selected two dresses and made his way to the changing rooms.

“He requested she assist him with the zip on the dresses, which she did.”

The teenager felt uncomfortable as Scott insisted on keeping his hands behind his back and moved away from the dressing room. As he left the store he pinched the girl’s bottom.

In another shop in the same month Scott grabbed another assistant’s rear and said to her: “You have a nice bottom.”

In March, he returned to the store and was seen touching himself while browsing for thigh-high boots.

WHEREAS, the City of Cleveland and employers should allow full access to facilities without qualification to all citizens and employees, including those denied access to bathrooms, showers, locker rooms or dressing facilities consistent with their gender identity or expression; and

IT SURE SOUNDS LIKE THIS WOULD ALLOW ANY MALE (NON-TRANS AND TRANS) TO USE “FACILITIES”. DOES “FACILITIES” MEAN WOMEN’S RESTROOMS, LOCKER ROOMS, AND SHOWERS?

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice in a place of public accommodation for any person who is the owner, operator, lessee, manager, administrator, servant, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation:

ARE WOMEN’S SHELTERS AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTERS FOR WOMEN “PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS”? IF SO, FEMALE EMPLOYEES WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO QUESTION (IT SAYS WITHOUT QUALIFICATIONS) ANY MALE WHO CLAIMS “GENDER IDENTITY.

THEY SAY THAT “GENDER IDENTITY” LAWS HAVE NEVER BEEN ABUSED. BULLSH**! THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE SAYS “WITHOUT QUALIFICATIONS TO ALL CITIZENS”. SO, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THEY ARE SAYING BUSINESS OWNERS, EMPLOYEES, CAN’T EVEN ASK WHAT THE HELL HE IS DOING.

Predator who claimed to be transgender declared dangerous offender

TORONTO – A sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed indefinitely on Wednesday. He noted the Montreal man, 37, attacked four vulnerable females between the ages of five and 53 in Montreal and Toronto over the past 12 years. “He has demonstrated from the age of 12 until the present an inability to control his sexual impulses,” said McMahon.

Justice John McMahon declared Christopher Hambrook — who claimed to be a transgender woman named Jessica — was a dangerous offender”

TORONTO – A convicted sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters could be declared a dangerous offender this month.

Christopher Hambrook — who claimed to be a transgender woman named Jessica — has attacked four vulnerable females between the ages of five and 53 in Montreal and Toronto over the past 12 years.

Justice John McMahon will decide Feb. 26 whether to declare Hambrook a dangerous offender, which carries an indefinite prison sentence.

The prosecution is asserting Hambrook, a former stripper and escort from Quebec, simply cannot control his deviant sexual urges and that locking him up indefinitely is the best way to protect the public.

Hambrook, 37, pleaded guilty in February 2013 to two counts of sexual assault and one count of criminal harassment involving two women — a deaf and homeless Quebec woman and a Toronto survivor of domestic violence — while he was living at a Dundas St. W. shelter and the Fred Victor women’s shelter in January and February 2012.

All of the victims’ names are covered by a publication ban.

Psychiatric and court records portrayed Hambrook as “hypersexual” and a sexual predator.

He couldn’t control his deviant urges, inside or outside of jail, sharing his sick sexual fantasies and irritating other inmates during a four-year prison sentence served in Quebec and Kingston.

He told grandiose lies, saying he once had a relationship with socialite Paris Hilton, earned $350,000 as an exotic dancer and that his mom died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

A self-described “heart breaker,” Hambrook said he’s had more than 80 male sexual partners in his lifetime, including “johns” in his prostitute days and that other inmates “made advances to him rather than vice-versa,” court heard.

After moving to Toronto in 2009, he boasted that he’d received more than 800 e-mails from old Montreal friends “begging him to come home” for sex and shopping sprees.

His latest crimes revealed a continuing trend of exploiting the vulnerable — this time women living at shelters.

The first victim, a deaf and homeless woman from Quebec, checked into the Fred Victor shelter on Jan. 8, 2012. Hambrook had been staying there as “Jessica” since Dec. 23, 2011. She was soon terrorized by Hambrook’s unwanted advances.

Hambrook wrote notes to the woman in French and learned both were smokers. Then, his notes took a creepy turn.

“He asked her if she preferred men and if she wanted a sex change. She started to feel uncomfortable around ‘Jessica’ and was nervous about her behaviour,” said Crown attorney Danielle Carbonneau, reading an agreed statement of facts when Hambrook entered his guilty plea in February 2013.

Hambrook made several unwanted sexual advances toward the woman over the next two or three days. He tried to isolate her in various rooms and she kept rebuffing him as she felt he was stalking her, court heard.

Hambrook stopped her once, grabbed her hand and placed it on his crotch. She yanked her hand away and said, “No.” Hambrook started talking about her breasts and invited her to touch his “fake breasts (he had none).” She became scared and had trouble sleeping as his room was across the hall.

The next day while she was in the shower, she noticed he was peering through the gap between the door and its frame. Hambrook vanished as soon as he realized she spotted him, court heard.

The second victim sought refuge at a Dundas St. W. shelter on Feb. 11, 2012, after suffering serious domestic abuse, court heard.

She remained there two weeks. Hambrook — who told people he was a transgender woman — was admitted there at the same time and ended up being his victim’s roommate.

Hambrook was sitting on a third-floor balcony, smoking a cigarette, when the victim went outside for a smoke. He invited her to sit beside him. When she did, he placed his hand on the bench so the woman would sit on it. She rose quickly, asking him what he was doing and he replied, “It’s a bum warmer. It’s also a boob warmer.” Troubled by his comments, she went inside.

When the victim found Hambrook was one of her three roommates, she had trouble sleeping. On Feb. 12, she left the shelter, consumed some drugs and returned to sleep.

Early on Feb. 13, she awoke to discover Hambrook standing behind her in his underwear, attempting to sexually assault her.

The victim shouted at him, demanding to know what he was doing. Hambrook “simply covered his face with his hands, said “Oops!” and started giggling, according to Carbonneau.

The woman reported the assault to police and Hambrook has been in custody since. His DNA was found on her nightwear.

Shortly after his mother died in Montreal in February 2002, Hambrook committed the first of his sex crimes by sexually assaulted a family friend’s five-year-old daughter. While on bail waiting for courts to deal with charges laid for that crime, he targeted a 27-year-old mentally challenged woman, by sexually assaulting her in his home and forcing her to smoke a joint.

Hambrook received two years in jail for each of those crimes, for a total of four years.

“He had no empathy, no remorse or understanding of his victims of his offences,” Toronto psychiatrist Dr. Treena Wilkie said in her assessment.

In childhood, Hambrook was diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and never made it through high school.

Wilkie diagnosed him with an anti-social personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, determined he was dependent on alcohol and drugs and had multiple sexual deviancies. He was rated as a high risk to re-offend sexually.

Hambrook was earlier assessed as suffering from bisexual pedophilia and exhibitionism.

He blamed his heavy drug use or his victims for his Montreal crimes. He stated the five-year-oldm victoim’s mother “had the hots for him” but he rejected her. The mom fabricated the crime to spite him, said Hambrook, despite pleading guilty to the crimes.

He asserted the mentally-challenged woman consented to sex.

In his psychiatric assessment, Hambrook provided conflicting information on his gender identity issue. He lied that he had been receiving hormone treatment for many years and lied that he wanted to pursue a sex change. He admitted he only dressed intermittently in women’s clothing and wanted to remain a man and have a relationship with a woman.

Psychiatric reports concluded Hambrook is not transgender. (***He called himself “Jessica” and identified as transgender. Under loosely written “gender identity” laws, all that is required is self-identification.)

“Mr. Hambrook’s conduct inflicted severe psychological damage on both victims,” said Carbonneau. “(They) sought refuge at Toronto women’s shelters at difficult times in their lives. They thought that they would be safe there, but instead, they were further victimized by the accused.”

THIS ORDINANCE COMPLETELY DISREGARDS LEGITIMATE CONCERNS OF WOMEN, AND THE HISTORY OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN. ONE IN SIX WOMEN HAVE BEEN RAPED OR SEXUALLY ASSAULTED. WOMEN HAVE BEEN RAPED IN RESTROOMS. THERE ISN’T ANY PLACE WHERE WOMEN HAVEN’T BEEN ASSAULTED. THERE ARE TOO MANY CASES TO LIST HERE. GOOGLE IT.

(1.) MOST REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS ARE MALE (OVER 90%). THERE ARE 1,671 REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS IN CLEVELAND. HOW MANY ARE MALE? HOW MANY ARE FEMALE?

(3.) STUDIES THAT GO BACK DECADES CLEARLY SHOW THAT PARAPHILIAS (VOYEURISM, PEDOPHILIA) ARE MORE COMMON IN MALES.

WE KNOW THIS ABOUT MALE VIOLENCE IN GENERAL. NO ONE IS SAYING ALL MALES ARE PREDATORY, BUT THE CRIME STATISTICS AND HISTORY SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

WHAT DOES (1.), (2.), AND (3.) HAVE TO DO WITH “GENDER IDENTITY”?

FIRST, THEY DON’T EVEN HAVE A CLEAR DEFINITION OF GENDER IDENTITY OTHER THAN HOW A PERSON IDENTIFIES AT ANY PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. UNDER MOST “GENDER IDENTITY” LAWS, MALES CAN CLAIM TRANSGENDER STATUS AND GENDER IDENTITY WHEN IT SUITS HIM.

SECOND, WHEN IT COMES TO CRIME, MALES WHO IDENTIFY AS WOMEN, SAY THEY ARE TRANSGENDER, OR CROSS DRESS OFFEND AT THE SAME RATE AS OTHER MALES. THEY DON’T WANT TO ADMIT THIS, BUT IT’S TRUE. IF PEOPLE DIG DEEP ENOUGH, THEY COME TO THE REALIZATION THAT TRANS* ACTIVISTS HAVE NOT BEEN TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH. THEY DON’T WANT PEOPLE TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING.

A CONSERVATIVE GROUP COMPILED THIS INFORMATION, BUT ANYONE COULD EASILY ACCESS IT. I’VE NEVER VOTED FOR A REPUBLICAN IN MY LIFE AND DON’T LIKE CONSERVATIVES. STILL, MAYBE THEY DO HAVE A POINT TO MAKE.

EXAMPLE AFTER EXAMPLE OF MALES WHO SAY THEY ARE TRANSGENDER, OR CROSS DRESS IN WOMEN’S CLOTHES WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDERING OR RAPING WOMEN, OR MOLESTING GIRLS.

THIS BLOG HAS HELLA LINKS, AND IT’S RUN BY A WOMAN WHO WAS MARRIED TO A CROSS DRESSER WHO “IDENTIFIES AS A WOMAN”. DEPENDING ON WHAT TRANS* UMBRELLA PEOPLE ARE USING, CROSS DRESSERS ARE OFTEN CONSIDERED TRANSGENDER. TO WOMEN, TRANSWOMEN AND CROSS DRESSERS BOTH LOOK ALIKE. WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING HOW THEY “IDENTIFY.”

I WOULD CHARACTERIZE THIS WOMAN AS MIDDLE OF THE ROAD, MODERATE, HOUSEWIFE TYPE. SHE DOESN’T PREACH RELIGION. SINCE SHE WAS MARRIED TO A CROSS DRESSER (SOMETIMES CALLED AUTOGYNEPHILE), SHE BRINGS TO THE TABLE A LOT OF PERSONAL INSIGHT.

FOR SOME MEN, IT IS A SEXUAL FETISH. STOP DENYING IT. SINCE WHEN IS A SEXUAL FETISH A CIVIL RIGHT?

FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT THIS WELL RESEARCHED SITE. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE COMMON DENOMINATOR IS MALE VIOLENCE AND AGGRESSION. (ALL MALES – SOME TRANSGENDER, TRANSVESTITE, SOME NON-TRANS). THIS IS WEBSITE RUN BY A WOMAN WITH LIBERAL TO MODERATE POLITICAL VIEWS.

MEN ARE ALSO VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE, BUT WOMEN AREN’T RESPONSIBLE FOR MALE ON MALE VIOLENCE. HATE CRIMES THAT RESULT IN SERIOUS BODILY INJURY OR DEATH TO TRANSWOMEN ARE BY AND LARGE CAUSED BY MALES. BECAUSE MALE ON MALE VIOLENCE CAN BE DEADLY, SOME PROPOSE THAT ANY MALE SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO WOMEN’S RESTROOMS AND OTHER PRIVATE SPACES OF WOMEN?